Percy & Michele Pty Ltd v Gangemi

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

PRACTICE COURT
COMMON LAW DIVISION

No. SCI 2010/05732

BETWEEN

PERCY & MICHELE PTY LTD (ACN 142 732 796)	Plaintiff
and
ANTONIO GANGEMI	First Defendant
and
THE REGISTRAR OF TITLES	Second Defendant

---

JUDGE:	MACAULAY J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	12 November 2010
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	24 November 2010
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Percy & Michele Pty Ltd v Gangemi
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2010] VSC 530

---

REAL PROPERTY – Caveat – Application to remove caveat – Whether caveat should be amended – Application to amend caveat to substitute interest claimed – Application refused -  Midwarren Estates Pty Ltd v Retek & Stivic [1975] VR 575 followed – Whether prima facie case of sufficient probability to justify maintenance of caveat - Piroshenko v Grojsman & Ors [2010] VSC 240 followed – Transfer of Land Act 1958 (Vic) s 90(3).

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Plaintiff	Mr J Mattin	N A Young & Co
For the First Defendant	Mr R Kendall QC	Isakow Lawyers
No appearance for the Registrar of Titles

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Introduction........................................................................................................................................ 1

Procedural history............................................................................................................................. 2

Further procedural matters............................................................................................................. 3

Principal issues................................................................................................................................... 6

Misdescription of the interest in the caveat................................................................................... 6
The 2001 Deed and Charge Agreement........................................................................................ 7
2010 Deed of Settlement................................................................................................................. 8

Relevant legal principles.................................................................................................................. 9

Facts.................................................................................................................................................... 12

Mr Lanciana’s and Mr Gangemi’s business relationship.......................................................... 13
The 2003 Settlement..................................................................................................................... 14
The Buckley Street proceeding.................................................................................................... 15
The 2010 Deed of Settlement....................................................................................................... 17
The vesting proceeding before Warren CJ.................................................................................. 19
Mr Gangemi seeks to terminate the 2010 Deed......................................................................... 21

The questions to be considered.................................................................................................... 23

Can and should the caveat be amended?................................................................................... 23
Does Mr Gangemi have an interest as chargee in the Maidstone land?................................... 26
Has the 2010 Deed been discharged?.......................................................................................... 31

Disclosure to Mr Osborne and Mr Kourosh............................................................................ 31
Mr Lanciana’s involvement at the mediation......................................................................... 34
Failure to discover the Charge................................................................................................. 34

Conclusion on prima facie case..................................................................................................... 34

Balance of convenience................................................................................................................... 35

Other matters................................................................................................................................... 37

Conclusion......................................................................................................................................... 37

HIS HONOUR:

Introduction

1. Since the breakdown of their business relationship in about May 2003 Mr Pasquale Lanciana, a director of the plaintiff, and the first defendant, Mr Gangemi, have been engaged in a form of legal warfare.  Their long and litigious history has been detailed in several judgments of this Court.[1]  At least 16 different legal proceedings have been issued between the parties or their associated corporate entities in the Supreme Court of Victoria, County Court of Victoria and Federal Court of Australia. 

   [1]Bloomingdale Holdings Pty Ltd & Anor v 63 Buckley Street Pty Ltd & Ors [2008] VSC 168; Gangemi v Osborne & Anor; Bloomingdale Holdings Pty Ltd & Anor v 63 Buckley Street Pty Ltd & Ors [2009] VSCA 297; Bloomingdale Holdings Pty Ltd v 87 Stevedore Street Pty Ltd & Ors [2010] VSC 268.

1. In this latest manifestation of their dispute, the plaintiff (“Percy & Michele”), a company controlled by Mr Lanciana[2], applies under s 90(3) of the Transfer…